|
On May 13 2011 07:56 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote:On May 13 2011 07:48 Nazarid wrote:Can the President declare war without approval?Yes, he can declare war anytime he wants. Take for Instance Libya, he did that without congress. Don't let nobody fool you, the president has more power than people say. Most of the people who say he doesn't, are only trying to keep you poorly informed. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com Wrong. He can deploy troops into combat for 30 days. But after that he needs a formal declaration of war from Congress. Thats what happened in Libya. No, Congress hasn't approved of anything in Libya, much less declared war. Congress hasn't formally declared war since World War 2. They usually authorize military force rather than outright declare war, but they don't want to get anywhere near Libya because it's too much of a political risk. And Obama isn't going to ask Congress 'cause he knows they're basically just shit-flinging monkeys who will take it as an opportunity to attack him politically.
I didn't say they declared war -_-. Read please. I said that the reason they could get in without congress approval was because the president can engage in combat for 30 days. Thats what happened in Libya
After that as you said he needs congress if he wants to continue for what ever reason.
EDIT: and Congress did pass something for Libya. Operation Odyssey Dawn
|
On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:48 Nazarid wrote:Can the President declare war without approval?Yes, he can declare war anytime he wants. Take for Instance Libya, he did that without congress. Don't let nobody fool you, the president has more power than people say. Most of the people who say he doesn't, are only trying to keep you poorly informed. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com Wrong. He can deploy troops into combat for 30 days. But after that he needs a formal declaration of war from Congress. Thats what happened in Libya.
The problem with that tho, is that after 30 days there is no real way of going back anymore. The de-facto power to declare war lies with the president already, and pretty much has since the start of the imperial presidency. Especially in american politics, where the first response to any military action pretty much guarantees the 'rally around the flag'-syndrome.
|
On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:48 Nazarid wrote:Can the President declare war without approval?Yes, he can declare war anytime he wants. Take for Instance Libya, he did that without congress. Don't let nobody fool you, the president has more power than people say. Most of the people who say he doesn't, are only trying to keep you poorly informed. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com Wrong. He can deploy troops into combat for 30 days. But after that he needs a formal declaration of war from Congress. Thats what happened in Libya.
Close enough but you are correct
|
On May 13 2011 08:00 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote:On May 13 2011 07:48 Nazarid wrote:Can the President declare war without approval?Yes, he can declare war anytime he wants. Take for Instance Libya, he did that without congress. Don't let nobody fool you, the president has more power than people say. Most of the people who say he doesn't, are only trying to keep you poorly informed. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com Wrong. He can deploy troops into combat for 30 days. But after that he needs a formal declaration of war from Congress. Thats what happened in Libya. The problem with that tho, is that after 30 days there is no real way of going back anymore. The de-facto power to declare war lies with the president already, and pretty much has since the start of the imperial presidency. Especially in american politics, where the first response to any military action pretty much guarantees the 'rally around the flag'-syndrome.
What are you talking about? The president has no power to declare war before this.
President- 30 days do what you want
After 30 days Congress. And what do you mean imperial presidency?
"Especially in american politics, where the first response to any military action pretty much guarantees the 'rally around the flag'-syndrome"
Not really. Everyone in the States pretty much opposes all these wars. The only people in Pro are all those people with family fighting.
|
On May 13 2011 08:00 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:56 domovoi wrote:On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote:On May 13 2011 07:48 Nazarid wrote:Can the President declare war without approval?Yes, he can declare war anytime he wants. Take for Instance Libya, he did that without congress. Don't let nobody fool you, the president has more power than people say. Most of the people who say he doesn't, are only trying to keep you poorly informed. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com Wrong. He can deploy troops into combat for 30 days. But after that he needs a formal declaration of war from Congress. Thats what happened in Libya. No, Congress hasn't approved of anything in Libya, much less declared war. Congress hasn't formally declared war since World War 2. They usually authorize military force rather than outright declare war, but they don't want to get anywhere near Libya because it's too much of a political risk. And Obama isn't going to ask Congress 'cause he knows they're basically just shit-flinging monkeys who will take it as an opportunity to attack him politically. I didn't say they declared war -_-. Read please. I said that the reason they could get in without congress approval was because the president can engage in combat for 30 days. Thats what happened in Libya After that as you said he needs congress if he wants to continue for what ever reason. EDIT: and Congress did pass something for Libya. Operation Odyssey Dawn
Sorry, your statement was ambiguous. It sounded like you were saying Congress formally declared war on Libya (and Congress has yet to approve anything for Libya; Operation Odyssey Dawn is the name of the military operation, not a bill). And FYI, Congress rarely formally declares war, the last time being WW2. I don't mind if you say Congress or the President declares war all the time (which is a perfectly fine alternative to the technical "authorizing military force"), but be careful with how you use the word "formally."
|
On May 13 2011 08:03 Nazarid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote:On May 13 2011 07:48 Nazarid wrote:Can the President declare war without approval?Yes, he can declare war anytime he wants. Take for Instance Libya, he did that without congress. Don't let nobody fool you, the president has more power than people say. Most of the people who say he doesn't, are only trying to keep you poorly informed. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com Wrong. He can deploy troops into combat for 30 days. But after that he needs a formal declaration of war from Congress. Thats what happened in Libya. Close enough but you are correct
Look up Operation Odessey Dawn. Congress did pass a formal thingy for military engagement w/e you call it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
Heck were even funding the whole thing.
|
On May 13 2011 07:54 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:40 travis wrote:On May 13 2011 07:38 domovoi wrote:The detention of enemy combatants is a terrifying practice that destroys the rule of law in America. lol said this way it's hilarious. America has been detaining enemy combatants since the Revolutionary War. well he means indefinite detention without trial Well technically enemy combatants are usually detained indefinitely, unless they're unlawful combatants and need to be executed (see Ex parte Quirin). It's just the problem here is that the goals of the "war" are rather amorphous and "indefinite" could end up being a very long time.
Technically, most "enemy combatants" are historically PoWs, which exist in a different realm. Dating back to the 1600s PoWs were regularly returned at the end of hostility (between two states) without ransom. From then the treatment of PoWs has steadily gotten better for the most part. As we are not at war with another state Ex parte Quirin doesn't apply as precedent. Terrorists should go through the criminal justice system.
"Enemy combatant" in the vernacular (in the US) means those who have been detained indefinitely outside the rule of law as part of the war on terror I was not thinking of PoWs in my response, they are detained under completely different circumstances.
|
On May 13 2011 07:11 travis wrote:
What do you guys think about renewing the ability to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial? I am actually more at odds with that, personally.
That's definitely messed up. Someone said it in another thread: for a country that Prides itself on liberty and justice, holding somebody indefinitely against their will sounds a lot more like hostage/kidnapping than anything else. I mean c'mon, WTF happened to the right to a fair trail and innocent until Proven guilty and all that jazz? I have not read the entire patriot act, however some of the parts I did pretty much state that everyone is potentially a terrorist and is treated as such. Illegal search and seizure without warrants is one of many disturbing things the patriot act has in it. I really don't see things getting any better, only worse in America. People are giving up rights for some "safety", never works out.
|
On May 13 2011 07:48 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:27 Euronyme wrote:On May 13 2011 06:46 domovoi wrote:On May 13 2011 06:43 Euronyme wrote:
So where are the TL republicans to defend this? Not a Republica, but I don't see the problem. Off the top of my head, Libya, Kosovo and Korea. None of them had Congressional approval. How does it work in Sweden? Honestly curious. Havn't been in war these past couple of hundred years, so I have honestly no clue, but obviously it's pretty tricky. I'm not talking about declared wars; the US has only been in five declared wars in its entire history, the last one being WW2. What process does Sweden use to deploy troops for whatever reason?
I think it has to go through parliament. Neither the prime minister, nor the government has the authority to deploy troops, unless we're being invaded.
|
On May 13 2011 08:07 TheFrankOne wrote:
Technically, most "enemy combatants" are historically PoWs, which exist in a different realm. Dating back to the 1600s PoWs were regularly returned at the end of hostility (between two states) without ransom.
I.e. detained indefinitely.
From then the treatment of PoWs has steadily gotten better for the most part. As we are not at war with another state Ex parte Quirin doesn't apply as precedent. Terrorists should go through the criminal justice system.
I'm not sure why the presence of a state should make a difference.
"Enemy combatant" in the vernacular (in the US) means those who have been detained indefinitely outside the rule of law as part of the war on terror I was not thinking of PoWs in my response, they are detained under completely different circumstances.
Terrorists are unlawful combatants. They are not outside the rule of law; there's a whole body of law that regulates their detention.
|
On May 13 2011 08:10 Billyssjssfj wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 07:11 travis wrote:
What do you guys think about renewing the ability to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial? I am actually more at odds with that, personally. That's definitely messed up. Someone said it in another thread: for a country that Prides itself on liberty and justice, holding somebody indefinitely against their will sounds a lot more like hostage/kidnapping than anything else. I mean c'mon, WTF happened to the right to a fair trail and innocent until Proven guilty and all that jazz? I have not read the entire patriot act, however some of the parts I did pretty much state that everyone is potentially a terrorist and is treated as such. Illegal search and seizure without warrants is one of many disturbing things the patriot act has in it. I really don't see things getting any better, only worse in America. People are giving up rights for some "safety", never works out.
This isnt what the OP is talking about make a new thread if you want to talk about the rights of terrorists and other such things. This is about "War Authorization in the Defense Authorization Bill"
|
Congress hasn't passed anything authorizing the operation. But, yes, they do continue to pass budgets that fund the military, which could be seen as implicit approval.
|
On May 13 2011 08:13 Nazarid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 08:10 Billyssjssfj wrote:On May 13 2011 07:11 travis wrote:
What do you guys think about renewing the ability to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial? I am actually more at odds with that, personally. That's definitely messed up. Someone said it in another thread: for a country that Prides itself on liberty and justice, holding somebody indefinitely against their will sounds a lot more like hostage/kidnapping than anything else. I mean c'mon, WTF happened to the right to a fair trail and innocent until Proven guilty and all that jazz? I have not read the entire patriot act, however some of the parts I did pretty much state that everyone is potentially a terrorist and is treated as such. Illegal search and seizure without warrants is one of many disturbing things the patriot act has in it. I really don't see things getting any better, only worse in America. People are giving up rights for some "safety", never works out. This isnt what the OP is talking about make a new thread if you want to talk about the rights of terrorists and other such things. This is about "War Authorization in the Defense Authorization Bill"
He asked a question and I answered it.
|
I don't like anything that goes against the checks and balances system that we have. Our entire government (on paper) is based on one individual or group having too much power.
And that's a shit ton of power.
|
On May 13 2011 08:15 TALegion wrote:
I don't like anything that goes against the checks and balances system that we have. Our entire government (on paper) is based on one individual or group having too much power.
And that's a shit ton of power.
That's just not a realistic viewpoint to have with the Constitution. The US has been altering the checks and balances of the Constitution since Madison v. Marbury and Gibbons v. Ogden.
|
On May 13 2011 08:13 Nazarid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 08:10 Billyssjssfj wrote:On May 13 2011 07:11 travis wrote:
What do you guys think about renewing the ability to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial? I am actually more at odds with that, personally. That's definitely messed up. Someone said it in another thread: for a country that Prides itself on liberty and justice, holding somebody indefinitely against their will sounds a lot more like hostage/kidnapping than anything else. I mean c'mon, WTF happened to the right to a fair trail and innocent until Proven guilty and all that jazz? I have not read the entire patriot act, however some of the parts I did pretty much state that everyone is potentially a terrorist and is treated as such. Illegal search and seizure without warrants is one of many disturbing things the patriot act has in it. I really don't see things getting any better, only worse in America. People are giving up rights for some "safety", never works out. This isnt what the OP is talking about make a new thread if you want to talk about the rights of terrorists and other such things. This is about "War Authorization in the Defense Authorization Bill"
The Defense Authorization Bill has the provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of enemy combatants in the war on terror.
|
On May 13 2011 08:05 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 08:00 Derez wrote:On May 13 2011 07:54 GinDo wrote:On May 13 2011 07:48 Nazarid wrote:Can the President declare war without approval?Yes, he can declare war anytime he wants. Take for Instance Libya, he did that without congress. Don't let nobody fool you, the president has more power than people say. Most of the people who say he doesn't, are only trying to keep you poorly informed. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com Wrong. He can deploy troops into combat for 30 days. But after that he needs a formal declaration of war from Congress. Thats what happened in Libya. The problem with that tho, is that after 30 days there is no real way of going back anymore. The de-facto power to declare war lies with the president already, and pretty much has since the start of the imperial presidency. Especially in american politics, where the first response to any military action pretty much guarantees the 'rally around the flag'-syndrome. What are you talking about? The president has no power to declare war before this. President- 30 days do what you want After 30 days Congress. And what do you mean imperial presidency? "Especially in american politics, where the first response to any military action pretty much guarantees the 'rally around the flag'-syndrome"Not really. Everyone in the States pretty much opposes all these wars. The only people in Pro are all those people with family fighting.
What I ment was, that if the president commits to a deployment, congress pretty much has to rubber stamp it. Presidents (both republican and democrats: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama) also tend to see the War Powers Resolution as unconstitutional, due to article 2, section 2 and congress has never actually enforced the War Powers Act. Congress only starts to oppose actual deployments after they have rubber stamped them. Two former secretaries of state have written a fairly decent assesment of this tendency called the Baker-Christopher report, and it's a very interesting read if this subject interest you.
'Rally around the flag'-syndrome is that it is very hard for US politicians to oppose military action in general, especially at the start of a large scale conflict (think Iraq, not Libya). Right after the start of a major military campaign, presidents in the US pretty much always surge in the polls. This happened with Iraq, with Afghanistan, and they only became unpopular after the initial phase.
For example: After 9/11, bush jumped from 50% approval to 90%, and Iraq was a 55% to 70% jump. This sudden boost in popularity makes it very hard for congressmen to vote 'against' the president.
I too know that legally speaking, congress has the power to declare war, all I'm saying is, that in the actual political process, presidents can do whatever they want and congress is a doormat.
And it's a 60 day period, with another 30 for withdrawal. Not 30.
|
Blatantly unconstitutional. It sucks having two war parties.
|
In America, "blatantly unconstitutional" really just means "I have no idea what the constitution says or how it's been interpreted over the past 220+ years, but I don't like the policy!!1"
I wonder what's the equivalent term for a country with no codified constitution.
|
On May 13 2011 08:33 domovoi wrote:
In America, "blatantly unconstitutional" really just means "I have no idea what the constitution says or how it's been interpreted over the past 220+ years, but I don't like the policy!!1"
I wonder what's the equivalent term for a country with no codified constitution.
It doesn't give the president the authority to go to war on a whim. It explicitly states that that authority lies with congress. Why would you just assume something about someone you don't know, and then attack them personally for it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
